Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Here in North Carolina we are dealing with the aftermath of a coal ash pond failure that dumped tons of coal ash into the Dan River. It will take decades to clean up.

Duke Power has resisted for years reasonable regulations to clean up leaking coal ash ponds that everyone knew were a disaster waiting to happen. Even now, the Governor of my state, Pat McCrory (a former Duke employee) has proposed half measures that don't include Duke paying for every red cent of the clean up (without passing those costs on to consumers).

Duke wants to just cover the ponds, but many of them are already leaking. Environmentalists in our state want the ponds closed and moved away from rivers to lime lined landfills.

We've got a nuclear waste storage facility in Yucca that isn't being used. Might be a good place for the coal ash.

Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Man, who knew compressed dinosaur could be so dangerous?

I thought we had attributed coal to plant matter more than anything else?

I have several friends, who as nicely as I can describe their beliefs, I will call conservative. They believe, very strongly, that coal can be clean. And by clean, I mean having no more pollution than gas. I try very hard to explain why that can't be, because of the very nature of coal itself, but they never really want to listen. I can show then scientific articles from my organizations, the AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences, but they say that all of those studies and research are left wing inspired, and wrong. This is the same attitude they have towards global warming, and any other number of scientific areas in which the right wing in this country is opposed to, such as clean air and water, and species extinction.

This isn't a scientific stand they are making, it's an ideological one. Until these people can be weaned from their false beliefs, which are entirely based on the idea that business reigns supreme, and that anything that inteferes with the free motion of it is wrong, and even, in the words of some, traitorous, we will never solve some of the biggest issues of the day.

Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Man, who knew compressed dinosaur could be so dangerous?

I thought we had attributed coal to plant matter more than anything else?

People are taking what he said too seriously. I'm pretty sure he was joking.

Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Man, who knew compressed dinosaur could be so dangerous?

I thought we had attributed coal to plant matter more than anything else?

Last I heard, coal was formed from giant mushrooms that existed all over the planet ~600 million years ago.

Of course, that a big part of it. I listened to a lecture a couple of years ago in an AAAS meeting that the world could easily support around 4 billion people, if we were fairly careful of what we do. But that the present 7.5 billion is getting to the level of unstainability without seriously lowering the standard of living in the areas of high resourse use, while the standard in poor areas just rose a little. And that that, was just barely sustainable.

The problem is that before the population is expected to decline, it's expected to rise to between 8.5 and 10.5 billion. No one knows which number is the closer one. This will lead to even more degradation of the environment worldwide. We're now at a major cusp. It's no longer whether we can prevent global worming, but by how much.

It's interesting though, that the richer a country gets, the slower their population rises, or even begins to decline. This is a big conundrum for governments in China, India and other third world areas to contemplate.

That, unfortunately, is a losing argument. Not because I don't agree with it 100%, but because the majority of humans are not prepared to accept this as a real possibility. Debates over evolution, climate change, even abortion have a better chance of reaching consensus than anything that mentions overpopulation.

(I know - I was a volunteer for ZPG over 20 years ago, and nothing has changed since. Except that we now have two billion more people.)

I worked in the coal research field. The problem with using coal, oil, or any hydrocarbon is how they fundamentally produce their energy, by the chemical process that joins oxygen to hydrogen, which produces CO2. We can take all the mercury, sulfur, and other contaminates out of the waste gas but we will always have CO2 coming out the other side. There have been discussions of CO2 sequestration, but not on the scale at which we produce CO2. Moving to natural gas is a good first step, but the only realistic long term, base load solution we have that is deployable within the next few decades is nuclear.

Some time ago I found a interesting quote from Walter Marshall, the chairman of Britain’s Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB):

Quote:

I have to inform you that yesterday the C.E.G.B. released about 300 kilograms (660 pounds) of radioactive uranium, together with all of its radioactive decay products, into the environment.

Furthermore we released some 300 kilograms of uranium the day before that. We shall be releasing the same amount of uranium today, and we plan to do the same tomorrow.

In fact, we do it every day of every year so long as we burn coal in our power stations. And we do not call that “radioactive waste.” We call it coal ash.

You have uranium under your house, it is what produces radon that can be trapped in your basement. Usually there isn't enough to matter. Uranium is more abundant on the earth than tin, so its not surprising that some comes out of the stack. A couple of hundred pounds of it being emitted along with the millions of tons of pollution spread across the entire planet is not something to fear (the uranium, the rest of the pollution should give you pause.) Mercury on the other hand is emitted in much greater quantity and is a true problem. But saying pounds of radioactive material are going into the atmosphere grabs the layman's attention more than sulfur and mercury.

That, unfortunately, is a losing argument. Not because I don't agree with it 100%, but because the majority of humans are not prepared to accept this as a real possibility. Debates over evolution, climate change, even abortion have a better chance of reaching consensus than anything that mentions overpopulation.

(I know - I was a volunteer for ZPG over 20 years ago, and nothing has changed since. Except that we now have two billion more people.)

China et al. are working hard to solve the overpopulation problem. Severe pollution ,in particular around factories and coal power plants, usually has very bad effects on general health, so in a way they are helping with overpopulation, just not in a way that we'd like them to do.

Some time ago I found a interesting quote from Walter Marshall, the chairman of Britain’s Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB):

Quote:

I have to inform you that yesterday the C.E.G.B. released about 300 kilograms (660 pounds) of radioactive uranium, together with all of its radioactive decay products, into the environment.

Furthermore we released some 300 kilograms of uranium the day before that. We shall be releasing the same amount of uranium today, and we plan to do the same tomorrow.

In fact, we do it every day of every year so long as we burn coal in our power stations. And we do not call that “radioactive waste.” We call it coal ash.

You have uranium under your house, it is what produces radon that can be trapped in your basement. Usually there isn't enough to matter. Uranium is more abundant on the earth than tin, so its not surprising that some comes out of the stack. A couple of hundred pounds of it being emitted along with the millions of tons of pollution spread across the entire planet is not something to fear (the uranium, the rest of the pollution should give you pause.) Mercury on the other hand is emitted in much greater quantity and is a true problem. But saying pounds of radioactive material are going into the atmosphere grabs the layman's attention more than sulfur and mercury.

The point is that nuclear industry is pictured as the bogeyman when coal is in fact releasing more radioactive waste in the tailings.

Sure, nuclear accidents are very visible major disasters, and that is why you want strong regulations and inspections, but coal is a very nasty silent killer at about every point of its cycle from extraction to wastes. Even La Hague nuclear retreatment plant handling of wastes, which is the weakest link in the chain, shows that, when correctly handled, the whole nuclear chain can be quite safe. Of course add corrupt and incompetent actors (public or private sector dont matter, TEPCO handling of things was worse than the russians), and it is very dangerous with lasting consequences. But still, environnemental impact of coal especially the US and Aussie speciality of strip mining is pretty damn worse, if unreported.

Oh and radon can be dangerous though if you live in a granitic old soils region. Danger level is stated at 150 Bq/m3 here, and there is old houses in my town where levels > 1000 Bq/m3 were reported in cellars. It is rather easy to manage, just renew air on a regular basis and fill worse craks, but you need to be aware of it.

That, unfortunately, is a losing argument. Not because I don't agree with it 100%, but because the majority of humans are not prepared to accept this as a real possibility. Debates over evolution, climate change, even abortion have a better chance of reaching consensus than anything that mentions overpopulation.

(I know - I was a volunteer for ZPG over 20 years ago, and nothing has changed since. Except that we now have two billion more people.)

yeah, reality is a bitch combined with the fact that people always want to blame something else for their problems...

The biggest factor we (humanity) struggle against in this issue is that coal is currently the lowest cost in upfront dollars for producing electricity. (not factoring in the very real but completely unaccounted for environmental 'externalities'). Consequently, most people when confronted with the ultimate pocket book question of how much they want to pay for electricity, vote for the cheapest option. It is John and Jane Q. Public that are in essence 'demanding' coal fired power plants. Regardless of the environmental costs... Which they either don't perceive, or don't care to perceive.

That, unfortunately, is a losing argument. Not because I don't agree with it 100%, but because the majority of humans are not prepared to accept this as a real possibility. Debates over evolution, climate change, even abortion have a better chance of reaching consensus than anything that mentions overpopulation.

(I know - I was a volunteer for ZPG over 20 years ago, and nothing has changed since. Except that we now have two billion more people.)

China et al. are working hard to solve the overpopulation problem. Severe pollution ,in particular around factories and coal power plants, usually has very bad effects on general health, so in a way they are helping with overpopulation, just not in a way that we'd like them to do.

Except it never works that way. When a population of humans are under threat (from pollution, disease, food scarcity, whatever) they make up for it by having more babies. Sure, lots of them die, but by having extra babies, enough of them reach maturity to ensure that the population survives. Inevitably, they over do it a little, which is why the countries where infant mortality is highest paradoxically have high population growth.

Except it never works that way. When a population of humans are under threat (from pollution, disease, food scarcity, whatever) they make up for it by having more babies. Sure, lots of them die, but by having extra babies, enough of them reach maturity to ensure that the population survives. Inevitably, they over do it a little, which is why the countries where infant mortality is highest paradoxically have high population growth.

While I'm not at all disagreeing with your overall point, I think a look at the top 25 countries on the infant mortality list from 2013 indicates that extreme poverty, lack of educational resources, and recent or ongoing strife and warfare surely play a large role.

What we also need to remember is that sure, we can switch to stuff like solar and wave and wind and hydro and natural gas. But we should also keep in mind that those are expensive, land and water changing, and may have impacts we only now see (bird deaths, fish migration problems, micro-climate changes, etc).

We also have a problem in that coal is cheap. While I do not live in a coal using region (hydro and wind are our resources), we will be affected by the wide use in China directly as we struggle with a large coal export terminal under consideration as well as a large oil terminal being considered--all using trains that still are not any safer than they were in the 1930s. and no requirement really that they get more safe.

I have several friends, who as nicely as I can describe their beliefs, I will call conservative. They believe, very strongly, that coal can be clean. And by clean, I mean having no more pollution than gas. I try very hard to explain why that can't be, because of the very nature of coal itself, but they never really want to listen. I can show then scientific articles from my organizations, the AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences, but they say that all of those studies and research are left wing inspired, and wrong. This is the same attitude they have towards global warming, and any other number of scientific areas in which the right wing in this country is opposed to, such as clean air and water, and species extinction.

This isn't a scientific stand they are making, it's an ideological one. Until these people can be weaned from their false beliefs, which are entirely based on the idea that business reigns supreme, and that anything that inteferes with the free motion of it is wrong, and even, in the words of some, traitorous, we will never solve some of the biggest issues of the day.

Take them on a vacation in the Appalachians. On the way drive through some fresh mountain top removal sites and past a large fly ash storage pond or two.

Both of these articles are meaningless because they're going through contortions to normalize deaths or radioactivity per terawatt-hr. That Scientific American article in particular deserves all the condemnation in the world for originally failing to mention that, but they corrected that error. This still contorts the facts twice:

Lastly, my problems with the source. Note that it's not deaths per year caused by the resource or energy production of _______, but rather "estimated deaths per year that can nebulously be tied to _______" (while downplaying deaths that can be nebulously tied to Chernobyl).

If comparing deaths/TWh is like comparing apples and oranges, comparing radiation is like comparing Fuji apples to McIntosh apples. While I also take issue with using a study from 1978, they made abundantly clear the most important fact: even ignoring the usual important questions like "what type of radiation" and "what concentration", the radiation from both coal plants and nuclear plants is utterly negligible.

I have several friends, who as nicely as I can describe their beliefs, I will call conservative. They believe, very strongly, that coal can be clean. And by clean, I mean having no more pollution than gas. I try very hard to explain why that can't be, because of the very nature of coal itself, but they never really want to listen. I can show then scientific articles from my organizations, the AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences, but they say that all of those studies and research are left wing inspired, and wrong. This is the same attitude they have towards global warming, and any other number of scientific areas in which the right wing in this country is opposed to, such as clean air and water, and species extinction.

This isn't a scientific stand they are making, it's an ideological one. Until these people can be weaned from their false beliefs, which are entirely based on the idea that business reigns supreme, and that anything that inteferes with the free motion of it is wrong, and even, in the words of some, traitorous, we will never solve some of the biggest issues of the day.

Your political arrogance and disdain aside, why exactly can't coal be clean? If you want to include all steps of coal power production like mining and transportation, fine, but make that clear.

Most 'clean coal' discussion concentrates on what most would call the biggest environmental impact - the power plant burning the coal and releasing particulates, CO_2, and other gasses. The technologies for cleaning that process range from electrostatic precipitators to CO_2 capture and storage. There are cost issues, and other concerns, but stating that it's "scientifically impossible" is ridiculous.

It may also be that your premise is simply wrong, and comparing it to natural gas is the wrong standard. The standard should be whether or not it negatively affects the long term global environment.

I personally find it amazing that the thousands of lives lost per year in coal mining are considered somehow worth less than the marginal increase in some nebulous potential future cancer rates from all the nuclear accidents that have happened.

China loses more coal miners a year than the world's nuclear industry has ever lost.

It's like a threat of a potential, sort of, maybe, some elevated risk is more risky than real, actual, children who will never see their fathers again. And the "green movement" sponsors this wholesale slaughter, groups such as Greenpeace show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear.

<snip> While I also take issue with using a study from 1978, they made abundantly clear the most important fact: even ignoring the usual important questions like "what type of radiation" and "what concentration", the radiation from both coal plants and nuclear plants is utterly negligible.

Tell that to the folks who live on the Dan River, or the folks who lived near Fukishima or Chernobyl.

I personally find it amazing that the thousands of lives lost per year in coal mining are considered somehow worth less than the marginal increase in some nebulous potential future cancer rates from all the nuclear accidents that have happened.

China loses more coal miners a year than the world's nuclear industry has ever lost.

It's like a threat of a potential, sort of, maybe, some elevated risk is more risky than real, actual, children who will never see their fathers again. And the "green movement" sponsors this wholesale slaughter, groups such as Greenpeace show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear.

Well, then things have changed greatly at Greenpeace since I worked there a bit over 20 years ago.

<snip> While I also take issue with using a study from 1978, they made abundantly clear the most important fact: even ignoring the usual important questions like "what type of radiation" and "what concentration", the radiation from both coal plants and nuclear plants is utterly negligible.

Tell that to the folks who live on the Dan River, or the folks who lived near Fukishima or Chernobyl.

I personally find it amazing that the thousands of lives lost per year in coal mining are considered somehow worth less than the marginal increase in some nebulous potential future cancer rates from all the nuclear accidents that have happened.

China loses more coal miners a year than the world's nuclear industry has ever lost.

It's like a threat of a potential, sort of, maybe, some elevated risk is more risky than real, actual, children who will never see their fathers again. And the "green movement" sponsors this wholesale slaughter, groups such as Greenpeace show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear.

Well, then things have changed greatly at Greenpeace since I worked there a bit over 20 years ago.

I couldn't say whether Greenpeace "show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear", but I will certainly say that leftist groups tend to bash coal and nuclear.

I personally find it amazing that the thousands of lives lost per year in coal mining are considered somehow worth less than the marginal increase in some nebulous potential future cancer rates from all the nuclear accidents that have happened.

China loses more coal miners a year than the world's nuclear industry has ever lost.

It's like a threat of a potential, sort of, maybe, some elevated risk is more risky than real, actual, children who will never see their fathers again. And the "green movement" sponsors this wholesale slaughter, groups such as Greenpeace show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear.

Well, then things have changed greatly at Greenpeace since I worked there a bit over 20 years ago.

I couldn't say whether Greenpeace "show a distinct preference for coal over nuclear", but I will certainly say that leftist groups tend to bash coal and nuclear.

For mostly good -- but different -- reasons. The damage that coal does, in so many ways, is (or should be) rather obvious at this point. With nuclear power, it's the worry that *if* something goes wrong, it could be incredibly horrible. Now, obviously countries like France have extensive nuclear power programs, and haven't had any issues that I'm aware of. With nuclear, it's what *could* happen. With coal it's what has already and will continue to happen.

Extracting it is hazardous to miners, while alternatives like open-pit mines or mountain top removal permanently alter the landscape and often release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Burning it requires careful pollution controls to avoid the release of hazardous chemicals like mercury or acid-forming sulfur compounds.

Man, who knew compressed dinosaur could be so dangerous?

I thought we had attributed coal to plant matter more than anything else?

You be exactly right.

The Carboniferous period, so called because the abundant plant life during its 70 million year run was compressed and carbonized into coal today, predated the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs came in the Triassic Period that followed the 50-60 million or so year Permian Period, which was the period following the Carboniferous Period.